The necessity of bedpans for bed-ridden patients is of course well-known. The practice of the principal users of bedpans, institutions such as hospitals and nursing homes, is to utilize disposable products, i.e., products discarded after use by one patient (also known as single-patient use products). As a result, many products have had to change in order to permit production thereof at low costs commensurate with single-patient use. Bedpans are no exception.
A bedpan basically consists of a cavity defining a receptacle and a seat portion to support a patient. At one time bedpans were generally made of metal such as stainless steel. The basic shape and configuration of such bedpans was generally similar to those shown in Jones U.S. Design Pat. No. D-173,490, and Saulson U.S. Pat. No. 3,246,344. In such “standard” bedpans, the seat portions extend inwardly from the peripheral wall to define a generally central opening accessing the receptacle.
One of the advantages of this design was its anti-splashback characteristics particularly during transportation. The overhanging inwardly directed seat would inhibit splashback and spillage of the contents when a bedpan was being moved after use. While some bedpans were later made of a plastic material in order to reduce costs, the basic configuration remained unchanged.
Both of these types of bedpans were relatively expensive and therefore were not disposable, i.e., they were intended for multiple-patient use. As such, it was necessary to autoclave or sterilize them before they could be reused. The resulting costs were high, both acquisition costs because of the material used and/or cost of production, and the cost of use was high as a result of the requirements and the expenses of sterilization.
Clearly, if a single-patient use or disposable bedpan could be produced to satisfy the needs of the institutions which are the most prevalent users thereof, it would be expected that such a bedpan would be received with great enthusiasm. Such was the case.
Thus, when a bedpan such as that disclosed in Painter U.S. Design Pat. No. D-216,058 first appeared on the market, it was well received even though it did not “look” like a bedpan. The Painter bedpan was advantageous in that it was injection-molded and therefore was inexpensive to make. Because of its configuration, a plurality of such bedpans could be nested one within the other, to minimize the amount of storage space required.
One problem with the Painter et al. bedpan, however, derived directly from the manufacturing technique used and the resulting low cost. Because it was injection-molded, it was designed with the seat portion extended outwardly from the walls of the receptacle rather than inwardly as did the then “standard” bed pans. Not only did this result in a bedpan which had a somewhat different appearance from the standard bedpan, but the tapering walls of the receptacle portion and the outwardly directed seat did not provide any undercut or catch to prevent splashback and spills. In spite of this, the bedpan was widely used because it was uniquely adaptable to single-patient use and because of the reduced storage space required due to its nestability.
Subsequently, bedpans such as those disclosed in Rickmeier Design Pat. No. D-216,059, and Rickmeier U.S. Pat. No. 3,597,771, appeared on the market. These bedpans, which were designed to permit injection-molding, also had an undercut portion to inhibit splashback and spills. While this feature was, in fact, desirable from the user's standpoint, more space was required to store a supply of such bedpans than was required to store the Painter type bedpans because the Rickmeier style would not nest. Thus, hospitals were faced with a choice between a type of single-patient use bedpan that would store in a minimum amount of space but which did not have a desired antisplashback capability and a bedpan having such a capability but which required increased amount of space to store because of its inability to nest.
Other configurations of bedpans which would facilitate nesting were also in existence. See, e.g., British Pat. No. 992,403. However, just as in Painter, no such bedpan of which applicant is aware really inhibited splashback. Even the British bedpan, which included a projecting transverse barrier in the bottom of the container portion to inhibit surging of the contents when the bedpan was being carried did not inhibit splashback and spillage. In order to prevent spillage, this bedpan was provided with some type of flexible cover that was placed over it when it was carried.